D&D (2024) WotC Invites You To Explore the World of Greyhawk

This week a new D&D Dungeon Master's Guide preview video was released. This one features the sample setting chapter in the book, which showcases the World of Greyhawk.

One of the earliest campaign settings, and created by D&D co-founder Gary Gygax, Greyhawk dates back to the early 1970s in Gygax's home games, receiving a short official setting book in 1980. Gyeyhawk was selected as the example setting because it is able to hit all the key notes of D&D while being concise and short. The setting has been largely absent from D&D--aside from a few shorter adventures--since 2008. Some key points from the video--

• Greyhawk deliberately leaves a lot for the DM to fill in, with a 30-page chapter.
• Greyhawk created many of the tropes of D&D, and feels very 'straight down the fairway' D&D.
• This is the world where many iconic D&D magic items, NPCs, etc. came from--Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tasha, Otiluke and so on.
• The DMG starts with the City of Greyhawk and its surroundings in some detail, and gets more vague as you get farther away.
• The city is an example of a 'campaign hub'.
• The sample adventures in Chapter 4 of the DMG are set there or nearby.
• The map is an updated version, mainly faithful to the original with some tweaks.
• The map has some added locations key to D&D's history--such as White Plume Mountain, the Tomb of Horrors, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Ghost Tower of Inverness.
• There's a map of the city, descriptions of places characters might visit--magic item shop, library, 3 taverns, temples, etc.
• The setting takes 'a few liberties while remaining faithful to the spirit of the setting'--it has been contemporized to make it resonate in all D&D campaigns with a balance of NPCs who showcase the diversity of D&D worlds.
• The backgrounds in the Player's Handbook map to locations in the city.
• Most areas in the setting have a name and brief description.
• They focus on three 'iconic' D&D/Greyhawk conflicts such as the Elemental Evil, a classic faceless adversary; Iuz the evil cambion demigod; and dragons.
• There's a list of gods, rulers, and 'big bads'.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, the Norse dynasties did claim descent from nature beings, including elves and giants. But that is because, in animism, people understood the features of nature to be able to (magically) manifest in the form of a human. Various prominent families claimed such ancestors. My own family includes traditions of descending from Freyr, among other nature beings, such as Alfr.

Well, sure, because Freyr was also a Trojan wizard, clearly.

 

[Voadam]

The recent hardcover compilation "The Making of the Original Dungeons & Dragons: 1970-1977" reporters all the OD&D books...except for God's, Demi-Gods, and Heroes, which juat has this blurb:

View attachment 384251

WotC hasn't put out a product which mentioned real world gods in 2 years. Planescape cut all real world god references entirely from the Outer Planes.

Gotcha, I was not even aware of a recent compilation and thought you were referring to WotC's prior premium reprint stuff.

Thanks.

 

[Yaarel]

Well, sure, because Freyr was also a Trojan wizard, clearly.

LOL!

It is more like, Snorri who is a prominent medieval intellectual speculated about how local Norse traditions might relate to Christian Pan-European literature from the continent that Norse communities were becoming aware of, including classical literature relating to ancient Greece.

Hence Snorri associates æsir with "Asia", and Þórr/Trór with "Troy". In the Norse context, this kind of speculation only made sense because various families really did believe some of their ancestors were animistic beings.

Today, we know the name Þórr derives etymologically from a term meaning "thunderer", and æsir ultimately from a term meaning "life, lifeforce". By contrast, the term Asia derives from a term mean "go up", whence sunrise. But in Snorris pioneering days, this was only starting the process of sorting out.

Notably, none of the Norwegian families claim descent from Óðinn. A comparison of later Norse manuscript traditions shows Óðinn descent was interpolated in later by certain royal families.

 

[Yaarel]

Note D&D Wizards have "spellbooks", which are Nonnorse.

The Norse mages are more like Psions. A Bard (without any musical instrument) is a great class to represent a Norse mage.

 

[pemerton]

I just should stick to my own table again, and remain in the Forgotten Realms or a more open minded setting.

From your posts, I feel like you might have a different orientation towards setting in your RPGing, from the one I have.

But if you're interested in GH as a setting, I do commend it to you - for the reasons that I've already posted (and that I think you've already seen), namely, that it is a very gameable map and setting history/background.

I had Orc and Ogre PCs in my Greyhawk game (using Rolemaster as the mechanical system) back around 1992 or 1993. I've used Wizards of High Sorcery (tied to the moons - the two visible moons of Oerth, and the third invisible black moon) in my GH game ever since I learned about them from the Dragonlance Adventures hardback in the late 80s, and thought they seemed cool.

The setting won't break if you do this sort of thing, and I wouldn't let the strange attitudes of some (so-called) "purists" deter you from doing what you want to do in your RPGing.

 

[Parmandur]

From your posts, I feel like you might have a different orientation towards setting in your RPGing, from the one I have.

But if you're interested in GH as a setting, I do commend it to you - for the reasons that I've already posted (and that I think you've already seen), namely, that it is a very gameable map and setting history/background.

I had Orc and Ogre PCs in my Greyhawk game (using Rolemaster as the mechanical system) back around 1992 or 1993. I've used Wizards of High Sorcery (tied to the moons - the two visible moons of Oerth, and the third invisible black moon) in my GH game ever since I learned about them from the Dragonlance Adventures hardback in the late 80s, and thought they seemed cool.

The setting won't break if you do this sort of thing, and I wouldn't let the strange attitudes of some (so-called) "purists" deter you from doing what you want to do in your RPGing.

Yeah, ignore the haters.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

So what?! It’s their game, so their version of the setting.

If someone has a particular aesthetic they want in a game, e.g. I recently mentioned my wife's campaign in which players could only choose from the animal races, that's all good. It becomes a problem when someone decides to refuse other players' input just to be a dick about it. It's not the what is done, it's the how.

 

[Hussar]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with limiting species - I’ve done it before for campaigns, and the last campaign I played in was an all-human campaign. The key is, once again, sing it with me - [emoji445] Session Zero. [emoji445]

We give the group the choice of campaign styles and systems that the DM is interested in running, themes and rules that they’d want to run for it, and everyone is well-informed and happy.

Generally I’d agree. But often I see DMs advocating for dropping particular races, not because they don’t fit but because the dm just happens not to like them.

This is something I don’t really agree with. I’d much rather have an excited player playing a race I personally don’t care for than force my “vision” onto the players.

 

[TiQuinn]

Generally I’d agree. But often I see DMs advocating for dropping particular races, not because they don’t fit but because the dm just happens not to like them.

This is something I don’t really agree with. I’d much rather have an excited player playing a race I personally don’t care for than force my “vision” onto the players.

Not much to be done about that except try to talk to the DM about why or try to find a compromise, but not every DM is a good fit every player. That’s why I like giving options on the campaign overall - if I can sell players on the idea and some of restrictions if I think they’re needed, then there’s less friction. And if they want to play a different campaign, that’s fine, too. It’s not like I’m going to give an option that I really hate as a DM.

 

[TwiceBorn2]

Chakyik and Wegwiur correspond to reallife Indigenous Canadians and require cultural sensitivity.

The Flan of Flanaess correspond to the Indigenous in the United States.

I'm Canadian, and I'm not convinced that this is correct.

You don't think Wegwiur could have been derived from the real life Uyghur (i.e., indigenous peoples of northwestern China)? Uyghurs - Wikipedia

Greyhawk's Wegwiur are ruled by a Tarkhan, and historically, the Uyghur were part of a Khaganate... I know of no indigenous Canadians who had "khans" (whether Tarkhans or others) as rulers or who belonged to a Khanate or Khaganate.

So while the map of the Flanaess might have been drawn using the Great Lakes area as a rough template, I don't think you can automatically extrapolate that the northern nomads of the Flanaess are culturally similar to the pre- or even post-colonization indigenous peoples of North America, when Gygax seems to have been as influenced by the Uyghur and other central Asian cultures when creating the Wegwiur and Chakyik (who are ruled by an Ilkhan). Let's face it, Gygax didn't write much about those nations/cultures (or any other, really), I believe his intent was to leave them as vague and undefined as possible so that DMs could "make the Flanaess their own."

And I suspect you'll raise the Rovers of the Barrens (People of the Plentiful Hunting Lands) as further proof of the "indigenous Canadian" roots of those peoples, who intermarried with the Wegwiur. Yes, there was an adventure (not written by Gygax) in an issue of Dungeon Magazine that definitely made those peoples seem like indigenous North Americans, culturally speaking. But the description in that adventure didn't really match the Rovers as depicted in the 1980 Folio or 1983 Guide... just another example of "make the world your own with what little info we've given you."

EDIT: ultimately, if your "head cannon" tells you that the Chakyik and Wegwiur are modelled after the indigenous peoples of North America, then by all means, you do you. No sense in forcing that vision, which is only marginally supported by official sources, on everyone. Only a Pholtan would do that.

EDIT 2: also, keep in mind that there are hundreds of indigenous nations in Canada, with their own unique cultures and histories. The Blackfoot and the Inuvialuit may both be indigenous peoples that are part of what today is Canada... but they are very unique culturally and historically.

EDIT 3: for further reference re Canada's indigenous populations, see this link: First Nations in Canada